Neglected father reclaims land despite missing written maintenance clause

In a significant judgment that prioritizes the welfare of the elderly over technical legalities, the Karnataka High Court has offered a major respite to an 84-year-old man. The court annulled a property gift deed the senior citizen had executed in favor of his two daughters after they failed to provide him with basic necessities like food and shelter.

This Senior Citizens Act ruling serves as a crucial precedent, establishing that an elderly parent’s trust in their children holds more weight than specific written clauses in a contract.

The Case Context

The petitioner, Venkataiah, had gifted over 2 acres of land in Tumakuru taluk to his daughters, Shivamma (now deceased) and Puttamma, in 2023. However, shortly after the property transfer, the daughters allegedly began neglecting him. When Venkataiah approached the authorities to cancel the deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, his plea was initially rejected. The authorities argued that the gift deed did not contain an express clause mandating the daughters to care for him.

Court’s Observation on Social Reality

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the case on February 2, overturned the lower authorities' decision. He emphasized that it is a "social reality" that parents often transfer self-acquired property to children based on love and trust, rarely insisting on written stipulations for their own maintenance.

The court noted that Venkataiah, who is illiterate, was unaware of the deed's specific contents and had signed it solely on the verbal promise of care. The Justice remarked that insisting on a written maintenance clause in every gift deed would defeat the very purpose of the welfare statute.

Defeating Technicalities

During the proceedings, while one daughter, Puttamma, agreed to the cancellation, the son of the deceased daughter, Narasegowda, opposed the petition to retain his share. The High Court dismissed the grandson's claim, stating that enjoying the property without fulfilling the obligation to care for the grandfather would amount to "constructive fraud."

Justice Govindaraj ruled that the transfer was vitiated because the trust reposed in the children was misused. He directed revenue authorities to immediately restore Venkataiah’s name as the absolute owner of the property.